The UK Supreme Court has ruled against Scotland’s request for a second independence referendum. The semi-autonomous Scottish government led by Nicholas Sturgeonleader of the independentists of the SNP (Scottish National Party), wanted to hold a referendum next October with the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”.
However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Parliament “does not have the power to promote an independence referendum” without the consent of the British government. London says the issue has already been resolved by the time of the first referendum, in 2014, in which the Scots voted against independence.
As foreseen by numerous jurists, the supreme judges unanimously rejected the application on the basis of which recognition of the right to promote a bis consultation (after Brexit) was invoked with only the favorable vote of the local Parliament of Edinburgh and without the traditional London binding placet.
The device was illustrated by the President of the Court, Lord Robert Reed, and rejects the legal arguments of the Scottish separatists on all lines: reiterating that – on the basis of the Scotland Act – the matter of convening a referendum on secession, inevitably destined to have consequences on the whole of the United Kingdom, remains subject to the final word of the British Government and the Parliament of Westminster as the exclusive power. And that therefore the request to promote it through the mere approval of a Scottish national law by the Edinburgh parliamentary assembly is not legally founded.
On paper, the SNP could have counted on a solid majority in the Scottish Parliament in favor of an encore referendum, for which Nicola Sturgeon once indicated the close horizon of 2023. While various recent polls continue to show a split in almost half of the Scottish population on the issue, against the result in 2014 in which the no prevailed over the yes with 55.3% compared to 44.7.
Sturgeon: Disappointed but I respect the sentence
Nicola Sturgeon said she was “disappointed” by the verdict. However, you added that you “respect” the response of the judges, who she – she underlined – “do not make laws”, but limited themselves to “interpreting” the existing one (the Scotland Act).
For the appellants, today’s verdict in any case confirms that the institutions of the Kingdom represent “a cage” and an obstacle to the recognition of the alleged “democratic will” of the Scots. Especially since the Tory central government in London insists on excluding at this historic moment the slightest prospect of a green light for a referendum rematch in Scotland: arguing that this is not the time to go back to discussing it just 8 years after a verdict, that of 2014, which both parties had pledged at the time to accept as a response valid for “a generation”.
Furthermore, Sturgeon had made it known even before today’s judicial ruling that she wanted to avoid constitutional forcing of any kind even in the event of a legal defeat. If anything, to aim at continue the battle for a new referendum on the political terrainmaking this objective the dominant theme of the SNP election campaign in view of the next British political vote.
